"Database" from wikipedia.org
A lot of this article seemed to be over my head- I had to repeatedly click on some of the hyperlinks so I could attempt to understand what the article was talking about. What I found most helpful out of the article was the discussion of the different types of databases. I hadn't realized that there were so many different categories, but it made sense when I thought about it more. I personally have experiences with operational databases and external databases. I think that databases are really complex, given the variety of DBMS software out there to use, and a basic understanding of how they function would really benefit librarians in this digital age. Like driving a car, you can know how to search the database, but it really helps to know how it's been developed to be able to work out any kinks.
"Introduction to Metadata" by Anne J. Gilliland
I'm so happy to finally know what metadata is! In fact, it's something I work with on a daily basis. Working at an archive, I'm familiar with all the types of "information about information" that the author describes. In my finding aids, for example, I have to include administrative data (who accessioned the collection, the collection's official citation), descriptive data (the entire description of the collection and its subject), and use data (restriction information). What really interested me was the brief discussion of metadata management- people in the information business certainly make a lot more information in the process! Understanding metadata is important for many reasons that are described in the article- ease of access, proper teaching techniques of how to use the LOC system in schools, etc.- and I think that the concept is essential. In my track as an archivist, most of what I do consists of creating metadata about my collections; this article really helped in explaining the basic concepts and challenges of the topic.
"An Overview of the Dublin Core Data Model," by Eric J. Miller
The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative seems to be primarily interested in establishing a set of standards for metadata descriptions. Miller acknowledges the difficulty of this by stating that there would never be one perfect way to describe everything, especially in a cross-discipline manner. However, in order to facilitate this project, the DCMI is trying to establish specific characteristics that will allow for a more descriptive and standardized metadata system. Miller gives the example of creating a definition for a specific word- in this case, "contributor"- that can be accepted as standard throughout various metadata descriptions. I certainly see both the merits and the difficulties of such a program, but the discussion of the actual architecture of the program is a little confusing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like your comments on the metadata article. It is interesting that maintaining information involves the creation of so much of it. I, too, have been generating a lot of metadata for my job. I am working in a database of psychological instruments - mainly I read articles, find the instruments, and then assemble a database entry with all of their metadata (the reference, the type of instrument, the type of source, etc.). It seems like a lot of librarianship involves databases and metadata!
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about the database article. I thought a lot of it was a bit over my head as well. I appreciate the need to understand how the different databases work in order to be able to use them efficiently, however this article seemed to go into far too many explicit details involved in the programming of them.
ReplyDelete